<quoted text>I hope I have answered this question, but do not think that the GMC should take action against a doctor for calling for suspension of the MMR, if s/he were to do so because s/he genuinely thinks the MMR might be unsafe for some recipients.(I am aware that it is very widely believed that Dr Wakefield acted for personal gain and the reasons for that belief. I am not talking about Dr Wakefield, but doctors in general).1. What should a doctor do if s/he thinks (perhaps only intuitively) the MMR should be replaced by separate jabs?2. What should a doctor do if s/he believes s/he has evidence that the MMR may be hazardous, but his evidence is rejected most doctors?I would also mention (again) that it is important to understand the rather low level of public faith in the GMC and other scientific quangos appointed by UKGov. It is not exactly that they are distrusted, but they have been wrong before and are not automatically assumed to be correct. Many people look at what they say as just 'majority professional opinion', rather than some kind of ultimate authority. Perhaps in the USA and other countries such bodies command more ready respect and their rulings and dictats are received with far less reservations or questions?Note: I am just discussing these questions. I rarely form very firm conclusions. I simply hold views as far as the evidence seems to support the belief. I think Topix is often very funny as some people seem quite desperate to 'win' an argument.(I wonder what they think the prize is?:-) I come here to learn and to see how my views stand up against people who have also read something of the topic.

Part of the FRAMING of Wakefield it was purported he was doing it for finacial gain. Most charges against him were bogus and meant as a public hanging of an anti-vaccine messiah which he wasn't.

I'm surprized you don't see it more than that. The article has to do with the very doctors/ authors of the 1998 MMR study, and how they continued their theory work on children after the studies release. It wasn't enough they hurt those 12 children, they continued and injured more.<quoted text>

<quoted text>Are you a total moron? Wakefield requested a totally unnecessary colonoscopy (with known risks) to be carried out on this boy, without parental consent, which went wrong. It had nothing to do with MMR. It was merely to check out Wakefields theory of a link between autism and colon disease. It was for this and other medical malpractices that Wakefield was struck off the medical register, and rightly so.

NO you are the total moron. Wakefield had total support from the parents of all children. Share your link that proves he had no permission. He was asked specifically pric99 to help these children. He made every effort to but when the media sensationalized the story, Pharma profits and GSK'S MMR vaccine's reputation was in the spotlight. This very vaccine was rejected by Canada over safety issued bozo, but Britain's connection to GSK was so strong they use Britain as a dumpming ground for this faulty, fraudulent product.

Let's not forget Wakefield at a conference, how he took blood at his child's birthday party from the invited children and laughing at their reaction. Anti vaxxers proudly posted that videod conference all over the web.

Let's not forget Wakefield had patents for measles vaccines with a secret ingredient to prevent GI issue, and they're dated prior to the release of his flawed study.

Let's not forget what Wakefield admitted to when interviewed by Matt Lauer, but his main purpose there was to pimp his flop of a book.

Wakefield had total support from attorney's, of which promised a pay day for those parents. Those parents would had agreed to anything just to get a pay day. One of those 12 certainly wasn't aware of the risks or even why the colonopsy was done. And that family won.

Also, Wakefield's flawed study never identified which maker or brand of MMR any of the children had. Behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. Hello, They all didn't even have the vaccine.

Let's not forget Wakefield at a conference, how he took blood at his child's birthday party from the invited children and laughing at their reaction. Anti vaxxers proudly posted that videod conference all over the web.Let's not forget Wakefield had patents for measles vaccines with a secret ingredient to prevent GI issue, and they're dated prior to the release of his flawed study.Let's not forget what Wakefield admitted to when interviewed by Matt Lauer, but his main purpose there was to pimp his flop of a book.Wakefield had total support from attorney's, of which promised a pay day for those parents. Those parents would had agreed to anything just to get a pay day. One of those 12 certainly wasn't aware of the risks or even why the colonopsy was done. And that family won.Also, Wakefield's flawed study never identified which maker or brand of MMR any of the children had. Behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. Hello, They all didn't even have the vaccine.

Lets not forget your whole post is nonsense and garbage and that you are a freaking dufus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.